The original note, as written at the time
Experts to aid people in enhancing and adequately documenting their processes for content creation in order to distinguish their work from AI generated content.
Ongoing development
Experts to help people enhance and adequately document their processes for content creation, in order to distinguish their work from AI-generated content.
This is the profession that appears the moment the output stops being evidence of the effort. And it is not a small service. It is the reconstruction of authorship as something you can prove.
At present the only claim a creator has is that they say they made it. That claim is worth almost nothing, and everyone knows it, so the market quietly responds by buying other signals — a reputation, a platform, a style recognisable enough to be attributed. All of those are available only to people who are already established.
Documenting a process changes that. The drafts, the dead ends, the version where it was wrong, the notes at two in the morning, the decision to cut something good — that is what a body of work actually is, and it is also the one thing a generator cannot produce after the fact, because the generator’s record is a prompt and a timestamp.
So the service is partly technical — capture the process without turning the creator into their own archivist — and partly editorial, because a process record that nobody can read is not evidence either.
The risk is a documentation arms race, where a creator’s legitimacy depends on performing their labour for an audience. That would be a new tax on the honest and no obstacle at all to the dishonest, who can manufacture a plausible trail.
The better aim is a quiet, portable, verifiable record: this is what I did, in what order, and here is the mess. Worth having for its own sake, before anyone asks you to prove anything.